Scarce v. Commissioner

17 T.C. 830, 1951 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 32
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedNovember 27, 1951
DocketDocket Nos. 22195, 22196, 22197
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 17 T.C. 830 (Scarce v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Scarce v. Commissioner, 17 T.C. 830, 1951 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 32 (tax 1951).

Opinion

OPINION.

Leech, Judge:

The question is whether the respective amounts which petitioner received in the pertinent taxable years as pay allowances from the Navy are exempt from tax under section 22 (b) (5) of the Internal Revenue Code.1 Exemptions from taxation do not rest on implication. United States v. Stewart, 311 U. S. 60. Hence petitioner must affirmatively establish that the amounts in question were received as compensation for disability resulting from active service in the armed forces.

The record shows that on January 1,1941, petitioner, having served for 30 years in the United States Navy, was retired and placed on the inactive list. Thereafter he received the pay allowance to which he was entitled under the applicable statute's. Having been retired to the inactive list, he was subject to recall. On June 9, 1941, he was recalled to active service. On August 6, 1941, he appeared before the Board of Medical Survey. On August 26, 1941, petitioner was ordered released from active duty as “not physically qualified for mobilization ashore.” The order of August 26,1941, states: “Your pay accounts are being transferred to the Retainer Pay Division, Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, Navy Department, Washington, D. C., from which office your retired pay will be forwarded to you by check.” Thereafter petitioner received the same pay allowance he had received while on the inactive list prior to his recall on June 9,1941. We think the order of August 26, 1941, makes it clear that the pay allowances petitioner received in the taxable years involved constitute retirement pay based on petitioner’s length of service. The fact that the medical officers reported him not physically qualified for active duty is not determinative. Elmer D. Pangburn, 13 T. C. 169.

We are unable to find in this record evidence to persuade us that such payments were made on account of personal injuries or sickness resulting from active service in the armed forces, so as to entitle petitioner to exemption from tax under section 22 (b) (5) of the Code. Retirement pay for length of service is not exempt from taxation. Elmer D. Pangburn, supra; Joseph B. Simms, 17 T. C. 1 (on appeal to C. A. D. C.).

The respondent’s action in including in gross income the amounts received by petitioner in the respective taxable years is approved.

Decisions will be entered for the respondent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Taylor v. Comm'r
2017 T.C. Summary Opinion 4 (U.S. Tax Court, 2017)
James Ramone Taylor v. Commissioner
2015 T.C. Summary Opinion 51 (U.S. Tax Court, 2015)
Janet M. Weiss & Francis E. Weiss v. Commissioner
2014 T.C. Summary Opinion 25 (U.S. Tax Court, 2014)
Weiss v. Comm'r
2014 T.C. Summary Opinion 25 (U.S. Tax Court, 2014)
Stipe v. Comm'r
2011 T.C. Memo. 92 (U.S. Tax Court, 2011)
Holt v. Commissioner
1999 T.C. Memo. 348 (U.S. Tax Court, 1999)
Carlton v. United States
7 Cl. Ct. 323 (Court of Claims, 1985)
Howell v. Commissioner
1981 T.C. Memo. 631 (U.S. Tax Court, 1981)
Sidoran v. Commissioner
1979 T.C. Memo. 56 (U.S. Tax Court, 1979)
Johnson v. Commissioner
1977 T.C. Memo. 367 (U.S. Tax Court, 1977)
Prince v. United States
119 F. Supp. 421 (Court of Claims, 1954)
Scarce v. Commissioner
17 T.C. 830 (U.S. Tax Court, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 T.C. 830, 1951 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scarce-v-commissioner-tax-1951.